What causes racial hatred: racists or racial friction?

Craven

I will respond to your last post -- and then, as au suggested, will just let this issue lie.




Au, in an earlier response to Walter, wrote: " Just think would there have been an Israel if there had not been the Nazi regime, I doubt it. Another legacy of Nazi Germany."

I have never before thought of that ironic circumstance -- and it hit me with a good deal of force, because, as au recognizes, chances are Israel would not exist except that the world ended up galvanized in sympathy for the Jews because of the atrocities of the Nazis. So Israel was born - and in a perverse way, owes a debt of gratitude to the Nazis for its birth.

Impelled by the irony, I asked two questions of any Jews participating in this thread:

1) Do you think Israel could have been born if the holocaust had not happened?

2) If "NO" -- do you consider it a fair trade-off?

The first question, nobody should have any trouble answering at all.

The second certainly has an edge to it -- but it does go to information that is reasonable to try to obtain. Does the existence of Israel in some way make the sacrifice of the people who died in the holocaust more meaningful?

ASIDE: In dozens upon dozens of posts here and in Abuzz, I have talked about always walking away from adversity with as much positive energy as possible. My personal motto is: Look for the silver lining in even the meanest of clouds.

That was what the questions were all about!

I resent and reject the idea that you and au are trying to paint - that this was baiting of some sort. It goddam well isn't.

I categorically reject au's suggestion that I ought to be insulted by my questions. That is bizarre.

My questions were legitimate and were a reasonable and logical extension of thoughts introduced by au!!!!!!

Now if everyone can just put their ill-conceived indignation on a back burner, I will withdraw the questions. I can see that discussing this further will probably end up provoking suggestions of anti-Semitism once the novelty of suggesting insensitivity wears off.

I sure hope the day comes when people won't have to walk on eggs when dealing with these kinds of issues.

Joe, I'm afraid that your use of the word "intelligent" is an oxymoron. c.i.

In following this line of discussion I was thinking that by the logic represented here that it is fortunate that America had slavery so the African people could be as well represented in todays American society as they are.

It ludicrous to think that way.

Craven, you are not being objective if you think a room full of Tibetan monks, who are of the same Buddist sect, and who have no political differences would not have less friction than a room filled with Jews, Arabs, pro-choice people, pro-life people, gays, and Baptist ministers.

We are faced with a dilemma in multi-cultural societies. Ignore the plain truth because our cult demands this, or accept reality and deal with it intelligently.

We must decide how much hate we are willing to tolerate in a multi-cultural society. Do we want to become like Israel? No, we can have a healthy degree of multi-culturalism and avoid an overabundance of hate caused by too much racial diversity.

Frank, in a weird way I know what you are trying to say, but your logic is clumsy. The Jews were looking for a homeland long before WWII. Perhaps the Holocaust brought world attention to their search for a homeland, but to say they owe the Nazis 'gratitude' is just a little off, IMO. If they owe anyone gratitude, it is the UN, thank you very much. They could have chosen any area on earth, but they chose this piece of desert, surrounded by enemies of their faith. This was because of their religious heritage, and I think it was brave to put themselves there, even though I am not a religious person. Also, I know you are not an anti-semite, so don't worry.

Joe I don't even want to address, but I will anyway...your thesis sounds like the sort of thing I used to argue in high school just to be a ****-disturber. You can't possibly believe that the separation of the races and the special interest groups is a better long-term solution to the problems with racism than actually going through the process of learning to get along. If you really do believe that, I have a white hood and a plot of land in Montana for you.

Cavfancier: You can't possibly believe that the separation of the races and the special interest groups is a better long-term solution to the problems with racism.

You have missed the essential point of this thread. I'm arguing about what the source of racial hatred is.

I am saying that we are mistaking the symptom of racism, racists, with its cause, multi-racial environments.

So, what I am asking is what balance should be struck in society between the benefits of multi-culturalism and the amount of racial hatred we can endure.

JM, The idea is that we should not "endure any racial hatred," because it is nothing but ignorance. How, where, and when this ignorance will be overcome is another "big" question. c.i.

The 'source' of racism is basically a combination of base human instinct to distrust those whom they do not know (tribalism) and social conditioning (niggers are bad), which comes from bad parenting. To argue that we are not capable of higher thought than this is fallacious. To argue that multi-racial environments are the cause of racism is certainly in the KKK lexicon of thought. The balance we seek between the races will probably always be a work in progress, but to try is what elevates us from the animals.

Joe, it's not a lack of objectivity to disagree with you.

I think it's entirely possible that a group such as you mention can gather in one room without friction.

Try objectivity yourself and think about whether we simply have a simple difference in what we view as friction.

I do not see disagreement as friction. I see disagreement as inevitable. Disagreement can lead to friction but it doesn't have to.



Dealing with something intelligently does not include the obdurate belief that everything you say is "plain truth" and those who disagree with you are exhibiting "cult mentality".

That is the very type of entrenched position that will lead to friction.




Bog this is getting old. How much ignorant obdurate stupidity are we willing to tolderate? How many retarted people do you think we can tolerate? How much undereducation do you think we can tolerate?

You are like a doctor who sees a symptom and decides to cut off the body part. "If thine eye offends thee cut it off and cast it from thee.."

Too much racial diversity does NOT cause hate. Nations where multiculturalism is at high levels often do not have near as much friction as a simple case of two polarized cultures.

Your own insipid examples bear that out.

Isreal: Isreal does not have a problem with multiple cultures. It has a problem with a minority from one nation of one larger culture who tries to kill them. It also has problems with a large number of the greater Arab culture who hate them.

This isn't "too much diversity" this is the same race! Two different cultures yes with diverse people within them but Isreal is simply not plagued by too much diversity.

It is plagued by the polarization of two peoples, who are of the same race.

Racial friction generally tends to happen with "the new guy". In the US this has been the Chinese, the Irish, the Italians....

The fear was that the good "stock" of the nation would be deteriorated.

These peoples were largely assimilated and now some of the very peoples that were discriminated against in the past are discriminating againts "the new guys" currently defined as Latin American people Mexicans and such.

History does not support your conclusions. history shows us that diversity can easily coexist and that true friction only occurs when the different peoples are polarized.

You seek to further polarize the peoples by blaming diversity. It's silly. And the logic you use to support it is fallacious. The examples you use patently false.

But when all else fails you say you have the "truth" and that everyone else has a "cult mentality".

Throw in repetition of the already refuted examples of Isreal and Iceland ad nauseum and we have a stubborn theory that you think should be given national attention.


Frank,

I just want to let you know that never suspected malice in your question. Your question is one that springs to mind when you consider that Isreal might have been created partly due to the holocaust. It's one that has been asked many different ways, there's just no good answer.

One reason you might think I paint you as bainting is because of my example. In my example the question would be a personal one and downright rude, your question is historical, the comparison I'd hoped for was that the quantification is impossible.

Anywho. I'll drop it too.

One last example: Look at the many countries of Africa. Many are, for all intent and purpose, one race and culture. As for all the problems that can be listed, I'll leave it for you to figure out. c.i.

Speaking of Africa, how about that King of Swaziland who recently stated that all the world's problems are due to women who wear pants?
http://www.namibian.com.na/2003/march/world/03D5088561.html I guess it wasn't racism after all...

This suggests Arabs are not capable of such. I wish you were capable of seeing beyond your distain of Arabs.



Yes yes, I have seen you say this before. You have said a few times that you'd rather die than live with them.

Every time you try to explain it you make a better case for having a prejudice against Arabs. I understand, after all many Arabs in your area are prejudiced against you.

But I stop short of validating your distain for Arabs.

cavfancier
The king is correct after almost 53 years of marriage I can attest to that.

Hey au, he said 'pants', not 'stretch pants' Also you gotta have a smidgen of respect these days for someone with the cojones to speak out against the human rights movement.... :wink:

I could live with Arabs if they were loyal citizens. But when I know that 20 percent of citizens wait for an appropriate moment to launch a new Holocaust, and nothing much can be done (judicial system of Israel is not less complicated and contaminated with radical leftists than the Western one, and we have no one in the Supreme Court or in the office of the Attorney General that could be compared to Mr. John Ashcroft for counterbalance purposes), I cannot feel safe.

"Before assuming office, all judges, regardless of religious affiliation, must declare allegiance to the State of Israel and swear to dispense justice fairly. Judges other than dayanim must also pledge loyalty to the laws of the state; dayanim are subject only to religious law." (Summary from a description of foreign juridical systems)

So this isn't true anymore?

cavfancier
I was speaking about the women wearing the pants in a figurative sense not a literal one. If your married and think you wear the pants you are deluded

steissd,

Concern for your safety is valid. I have a question, how did you come up with 20%? Depending on what you mean I think it could be too low or too high, but am wondering what 20% you are talking about (e.g. I think more than 20% of the Arabs in your immediate vicinity support the intifada but I think much less are willing to give the ultimate support of suicide bombing by blowing themselves up).

And one more thing. I do not hate Palestinians, I do not wish them any troubles. I want all them be so educated and so much prosperous that they would be necessitated to import dishwashers, agricultural laborers and loo cleaners from France. I want their currency to be second in global importance after $. I want them to have world's longest life expectancy and lowest children mortality. I want to read every year in the newspaper about Palestinian Nobel Prize winners in different fields of science and in literature. But let all this miracle take place outside Israel. Amen.